Quote Originally Posted by thcbongman
It's puffery and that's exactly how you define these "lies." It's not lies because the case that was made to the UN was subjective. When Anti-Bush people go around saying Bush lied, it's not technically correct. It's not like he made shit up out of the blue. He took data/argument/case and projected it to sound more severe than it really was.

Example would be if I said my marijuana is the bestr than yours. You'd call that a lie but there would be no way you could prove it unless you compared all the marijuana with mine and you smoked every single bit.

That's exactly what the Bush Administration did. They claimed A + B = D without proof and saying we must go invade because Iraq is an imminent threat. It's was subjective at the time whether Iraq was an imminent threat or not. There was no objectivity involved and now it's been proven they weren't.
No. It wasn't a "subjective" interpretation of some facts that could be seen either way. Colin Powell went to the UN and offered what they claimed was solid objective proof. It turned out to not be true. SOME of it can be attributed to bad intelligence, but a good portion of it was things that the CIA already knew to be false. That amounts to a lie.